I didn't care much for this movie...not enough gore action, pretty cool prosthetics though. I've always been curious what Daniel Stern would be like if he played a dirty soup kitchen guy...yeah that's pretty much what I pictured.

ugh... this movie was painful to watch. a lot of it was predictable (i mean, c'mon, even for a b-movie). bad effects, bad lighting... awful. i still shake my head everytime i go to the video store and see "C.H.U.D." and "C.H.U.D. II" on the shelf.

Everyone else on this sight seems to think that CHUD sucked, but I liked it, it's one of the best cannibal flicks ever. If you like this you should check out "Parents," my personal fav. cannibal flick. (And if you didn't like it: vice versa).

The scene at the end, where the cops are attacked at the diner, is talked about by characters half-way through the picture, suggesting some haphazard last-minute editing. This kind of "Whoops! Aw, who cares"-type editing can also be seen in NIGHT OF THE LEPUS (oh, please, burn this film)when a family in a station wagon drives past the hitch-hiking hero about thirty minutes after they were found dead. (Guess the kids were too cute. No they weren't.)

I have to say that I was almost dreading watching this movie. Not only had I heard bad things about it from other people, but I watched C.H.U.D. 2: Bud the Chud—the horror film that currently holds my “worst of all time” title—less than a week before. What a difference! C.H.U.D. is a great film. There are plenty of scares, thrills, artfully done gore, and the soundtrack works incredibly with the mood of the film. At times, the atmosphere actually reminded me a bit of Dawn of the Dead. In my opinion, the campy performances work well, and add to the comic book horror style of the film—a style I’ve always enjoyed. Don’t let negative reviews stop you from checking out C.H.U.D. Also don’t let a viewing of Bud the Chud scare you off. Horror fans of 70s and 80s films by directors such as George Romero and Larry Cohen who can approach C.H.U.D. without preconceptions are bound to enjoy it.

Obviously, CHUD is a terrible, terrible 80's B-Movie.However, it is, in a way, one of the best movies I have ever seen, becuase it's so crappy and B-ish, it just makes you smile. I was overcome with joy when I saw this board- so many people, brought together by CHUD's.<Sniff>PS- Can't wait to see if CHUD 3 is produced!!!

I saw this film both on regular TV and on video. On regular TV, the John Goodman restaurant scene is in the middle of the film. There is a little more footage to that scene where Goodman's character and his cop buddy sexually harass the waitress before becoming CHUD fodder. On another note, I thought CHUD was another example of an intriguing premise that was executed in a less-than-desirable manner. Some of the script was not very creative and the editing was poor. However, I thought it was smart to limit the shots of the monsters (a la "Alien") and I enjoyed watching John Heard and Daniel Stern in types of roles that they never played again in future movies. The music was pretty cool, too. CHUD isn't great, but I still enjoy watching it once in a blue moon!

I wold just like to point out 3 CHUD referances that were funny as Hell: 1) On the Simpsons Homer is falling of a building and grabs on to Otto who's bungee jumping. Homer grabs on to him and his extra weight streches out the bungee more enough to send them down a man hole. Homers sees sees CHUDs, Morlocks and Molemen. 2) Homer explains he fell down into the sewer when he was chased by a pimp in New York and then said "and that's when the CHUDs came after me. 3) on the Critic a movie critic is being bribed to give a movie a good review. The critic states: "This made Hud look like CHUD. And I loved Hud." Jay says he'll report him to the critics society and the other critc says: "They're at the buffet." Then you see all these guys at a buffet and a man who says: "Sorry this table is reserved for Roger Ebert."

I instantly fell in love with CHUD. I had passed it so many times in various places, and was always intesely curious what those fine letters stood for. Imagine my jubilance when I discovered that they meant "cannibalistic humanoid underground dwellers" or as Daniel stern figure out later, "contamination hazardous urban disposal." CHUD has got to be the best of the worst, a B-movie triumph. If any one knows where I can acquire a copy of CHUD 2:Bud the CHUD, e-mail me and let me know. how could i possibly miss out on a sequel that follows a movie where they have lines such as: "That doesn't wash, Bosch."

C.H.U.D. rocked. I love cheesy monster movies, and I hate CGI. Long live rubber suits. C.H.U.D. is a perfect example of great suits and cheesy filmmaking. And Daniel Stern rocks. Not to mention this flick had a better-than-average prophet of doom. The twitchy guy with the knife kicked ass, too. Just one complaint. Someone seems to have...chudded on the box of the copy that I rented. Ick.

Anyone ever notice that the diner attack sequence was removed from the middle of the movie and placed at the end to create a sequel hook? Look again. New World Pictures (who produced this really inventive satire/horror movie) evidently had a lot of faith in this movie, too bad it didn't fly. CHUD II: Bud the Chud was an absolutely atrocious in name only sequel directed by David (as in Amy's brother) Irving.

Screenwriter Parnell Hall is a part time Private Investigator that writes a series of comic murder mysteries involving the struggling writer/private investigator Stanley Hastings. When Stanley had a screenplay produced and destroyed by Hollywood hacks (revenge anyone, anyone?) the dust jacket of Hall showed him clowning around with one of the C.H.U.D. on the set of his own horrible movie experience.

C.H.U.D. has it's momets. It just depends on which version you are watching. If you are asking their are more than just one version? Yes their is. In fact, not is their only two versions but three exist. The theatrical release version, the edited down re-issue version, and the TV version. The first version was released by New World Pictures totally uncut at the running time of 100 minutes. It didn't do so well and New World took C.H.U.D. and cut the film down to 88 minutes and it still was a box office failure. The scene with the two cops (one was a young John Goodman) in the diner was in the middle of the film, but in the re-issue version it was placed at the end to state that "the horror is not over" deal. The TV version contains some sequences that were cut from the theatrical version and also had the attack diner scene in the middle of the film. Personally, I have seen both the re-isssue 88 minute version and the TV version, but since Anchor Bay Entertainment is planning on issuing C.H.U.D. on video and DVD I hope they will release the original 100 minute version just to show us what the difference was. All in all, the make up effects were excellent and the acting was pretty good. Daniel Stern is both hillarious and straight forward as the Reverend who owns the soup kitchen. The lighting was also good (My TV copy actually has dark lighting on it. Is it the print quality? Who knows? All I know is that my TV picture was on the 45 brightness so I can see it better.) The gore effects were somewhat unconvincing, but some were still gross as Hell. I was dissapointed that we did not get to see the C.H.U.D.'s were not eating their victims on screen, but that could be some of the footage cut on the TV and re-issue version. C.H.U.D. is still a good film worthy of three stars. Let me just say this, would you rather want to watch a good film like C.H.U.D or a bad film like TITANIC. It is your choce.